Playing with only 2 players

RPGPundit · April 06, 2018, 06:21:00 AM

Quote from: AsenRG;1032846And I'm saying that my experience points to the complete opposite conclusion. That is, it's easy to sustain long-term play with 10+ players, it's easy to do it with 3 or less players. What is hard is to keep a long-term game going with 4-6 players.

Well, I'd say it's exactly the opposite.

AsenRG · April 06, 2018, 08:02:27 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit;1033099Well, I'd say it's exactly the opposite.

Sure, but my experience would lead me to think that either you're objectively wrong...or that, le gasp, mileages vary:D!
In either case, we all recommend what worked for us. But sometimes those would be the exact opposite things, like, say, right in this thread;).

RPGPundit · April 08, 2018, 05:37:16 AM

The fact that the more standard RPG group is 4-6 players seems to suggest that there's more likelihood of your experience being the nonconforming one.

AsenRG · April 08, 2018, 06:25:23 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit;1033370The fact that the more standard RPG group is 4-6 players seems to suggest that there's more likelihood of your experience being the nonconforming one.

Said fact is best explained by tradition and people sticking to a model that doesn't help them. Like, the "you need one of each basic classes" model;).

Before the session:
"We need one of each core class to get a balanced party! But three friends want to come together! Oh, woe is us, either we're going to play with a base class down, or one, nay, maybe two classes are going to be overrepresented!"
After the session:
"Well, the three warriors were different enough. Might it be because of the roleplaying?"
"Don't know, but two Fighting Men and a Ranger were cutting through my encounters with barely any difficulty!"
"Yeah! Wasn't it great? And they say they could bring another friend or two!"
"...OK, everybody had fun. But no adding more players!"

(Two sessions later):
"We're down to four players. Two of them were unable to make it, and we had a miserable time, because the encounters were geared for 6 PCs. OTOH, the GM seemed happy. Clearly 4-6 is optimal!"

Yes, I've been there and seen it:D!
Doesn't prove anything, other than Gronan's opinion on "most people"

.

S'mon · April 08, 2018, 03:50:06 PM

I've run successful campaigns with anything from 1 to 7 players, and my current open campaign probably has had 20 or so play at one time or another, as Gygax intended.

I don't think there is any solid rule about ideal group size, there are too many variables. The longest lasting campaigns all tend to have at least one highly committed 'alpha gamer' who sticks with it, maintains continuity, and is the heart of the game, but around that person(s) can be 0 to 20+ others.

rgrove0172 · April 08, 2018, 06:35:36 PM

Fully 80 to 90% of my campaigns have been run for 1,player over the years. It's different but very rewarding and in my opinion superior to the typical gang bang in many ways.

mAcular Chaotic · April 08, 2018, 07:17:33 PM

Having a low number of players is easy to run for because rather than worrying about people canceling, it usually means you can pick the few players who are dedicated and interested enough to always be ready to go and make the scheduling work.

It's when you have like 10+ people that you will get some flakes in the mix, but if you have that many, you can usually afford to run without a few people. So I agree that a small or large group is easiest to run without interruption.

RPGPundit · April 10, 2018, 04:28:10 AM

Filling all the niches can be relatively important, but that's not the only reason why 4-6 is a sweet spot. It is not so many as to stop players from having chances for their characters to get time to shine (and to develop more deeply as characters), but it's also not so few as to miss some of that essential group dynamic. It's less about in-game stuff as it is about group dynamics.

AsenRG · April 11, 2018, 06:24:53 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit;1033626Filling all the niches can be relatively important, but that's not the only reason why 4-6 is a sweet spot. It is not so many as to stop players from having chances for their characters to get time to shine (and to develop more deeply as characters), but it's also not so few as to miss some of that essential group dynamic. It's less about in-game stuff as it is about group dynamics.

IME, group dynamics only improve with less players:).

Again, Pundit, your experience obviously differs, and I respect that. However, in a thread about playing with only 2 players, I'm pretty sure the OP would be better off following the example that makes games with less players as viable or more viable than those with 3-6 players;).